severoon's Journal: Hot Button Issue: Did Bush Lie?

Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This bears repeating; Bush did not lie about WMDS in Iraq.

Anyone who doesn't know this by now does not want to know it. While there was disagreement about how to handle Iraq, everyone was in agreement that Iraq either had or was dangerously close to having WMDs. There is no doubt that Iraq did indeed have, and use, WMDs in the past. There is no doubt that Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs when inspectors were banned from the country, and these stockpiles were unaccounted for as of the beginning of the war. And there is no doubt that Iraq had several cozy relationships with terrorist groups that want to hit the US.

Bush acted on information believed by Democrats and Republicans, President Clinton, Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, and the United Nations. It's true he was the only one to act. It's not true that he was the only one that believed there were WMDs. That there was a serious doubt on this issue that ran across such a broad spectrum as the aforementioned list of believers is more than enough for me.

It is true that there is something fishy about the oil-for-food money situation in France. It is true that key UN people were possibly benefitting from this soon-to-blow scandal. It is true that Russia and France stood to benefit much by preventing the overthrow of Hussein's regime in the way of oil due them.

Bush did not lie about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Read it again: Bush did not lie about an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. The Bush Administration did not say that they collaborated specifically on the 9/11 attack. That Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack and that Iraq and Al Qaeda were generally linked over the previous 10 years, though, is more than enough for me. That any support Iraq gave Al Qaeda indirectly supported the 9/11 attacks by freeing up more of their resources and time is more than enough for me. That Iraq supported any terrorism at all is more than enough for me.

Doesn't this mean we have to attack North Korea? China? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

No, it doesn't. That's the great thing about being the good guy. We can pick off the bad guys in whatever order we choose, at our own pace, and using any of the methods available to us, whether it be mild protestations or economic sanctions or all-out war. We can legitimately do what we want because we're the good guys.

Since the television went back to normal scheduling after 9/11, I've grown tired of hearing, "Dissent is patriotic! Dissent is patriotic!" You know what else is patriotic? Patriotism.

If you were one of the people that clapped after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 in the theater, don't respond to this entry. This post isn't for you; it's only for people who can deal with facts and change their minds.

Woah doggie

[mcelrath]

Wow, frustrated much? ;) Lemme guess, you just saw Farenheit 9/11 and it pissed you off. Maybe you should address some specific things in that movie?

So I'll hit your points one by one.

Bush did not lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This bears repeating; Bush did not lie about WMDS in Iraq.

I think it is clear that he did lie. I have been thinking lately that if he is able to win the next election, impeachment proceedings will begin shortly thereafter. (if our democracy doesn't crumble due to election disputes) The UN finds that Iraq had no weapons [usatoday.com]. Also before the war we had credible intelligence that Iraq destroyed its weapons after the first Gulf War [fair.org]. Unfortunately the administration cannot dismiss Hussein Kamel as an unreliable witness, because it used his testimony repeatedly to justify the second war. However the administration carefully picked the facts out of his testimony that supported their preconceived idea that Iraq had weapons, and ignored other facts.

Selectively ignoring facts that do not fit their preconceived notions or ideology is what make this administration particularly dangerous. They have done it on many, many issues. They cannot do what is best for the American people if they cannot evaluate what is best in a given situation. They are no better than the prewar Taliban, imposing their beliefs on the country. I fully expect Mosques to be destroyed soon...

It is true that there is something fishy about the oil-for-food money situation in France. It is true that key UN people were possibly benefitting from this soon-to-blow scandal. It is true that Russia and France stood to benefit much by preventing the overthrow of Hussein's regime in the way of oil due them.

I do not think this was so fishy. It was straightforward and public [un.org]. Yes, France and Russia received a benefit in this arrangement in the form of below market prices for oil. So it is not surprising that their administrations were opposed to war. What is fishy about this? Many many other countries were opposed to invading Iraq that were not tainted by this oil-for-food program (i.e. the rest of Europe). Perhaps they were also not tainted by manipulation of intelligence.

that Iraq and Al Qaeda were generally linked over the previous 10 years, though, is more than enough for me

Al Queda has been linked with many, many countries. Such an organization constantly looks for safe havens for its agents, and spreads its agents as far as possible. No doubt including Iraq. I expect there were meetings between Al Queda and every single arab country's government. In particular, there are known meetings between bin Laden and US officials. [prisonplanet.com] Should we attack ourselves next based on this weak evidince? I can find no articles indicating material support from Iraq to Al Queda. War is a serious step to take, and should not be done so lightly. There is better evidince of material support from Saudi Arabia [cnn.com]. (and another [sfgate.com]) But I think Farenheit 9/11 sufficently addressed the sick US/Saudi Arabia relationship.

Doesn't this mean we have to attack North Korea? China? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

We will not attack Saudia Arabia due to conflicts of interest, and China due to prudence. But North Korea and Iran are on the chopping block. Make no mistake, this administration is controlled by the Neo-cons [newamericancentury.org] who have as one of their fundamental principles "fight and decisively win multiple, simu

Re:Woah doggie

[severoon]

Oh no. We can't chronicle our political discussions in writing. Who has the time? (For the casual reader: mcelrath and I meet up frequently in real life and debate politics for hours on end. For hardcore /.ers: "real life" refers to the bio-wetware system you use when you leave your desk to get a beer or void your bladder...you can recognize it because the 3D graphics are, like, totally awesome.)

I saw F911 about a month ago, and to be honest this is largely unconnected to that experience. The movie floun

Iraq - Al Qaeda Link

[mdielmann]

Supposing that all you said about the suspicions (we don't have any evidence, beyond circumstantial, which is quite strong), and your willingness to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda due to known interactions in the last 10 years, I'm left with one question. Is 10 years a special number? Why not 20? Is that because then the U.S. would have links with both in the referenced time span?

Any person or group who says "we can do what we want, because we're the good guys" usually aren't. The means may justify the ends, b

Re:Iraq - Al Qaeda Link

[severoon]

I just want to be clear on the point you're trying to make...in your mind, is there some kind of moral equivalence between the US interactions with Al Qaeda and Iraq's?

If you really don't know the difference, maybe it's time to read up a little on that part of US history. If you have read up on it, I'm only left with the conclusion that you're blinded by an extreme ideology.

Re:Iraq - Al Qaeda Link

[mdielmann]

My point is this: both the recently-dethroned Hussein and bin Laden were supported by the U.S. government. Please don't tell me that when the U.S. trained bin Laden that he wasn't engaging in terrorist actions, merely political activism. Therefore, the U.S. has, and probably will again, funded terrorists, both on a governmental and a grassroots level (the grassroots is an aside, but the IRA was heavily funded by American money from Irish immigrants and others). So how can one say that the U.S.'s means w

Re:Iraq - Al Qaeda Link

[severoon]

As far as comparing America's "support of terrorism" vs. Iraq's, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, we supported bin Laden and Hussein at different times in our past, but only because at the time, in each of their respective situations, each was the lesser of two evils. It happens in global politics that occasionally governments are left with unpalatable choices that must still be made. It supports your ideology to myopically focus on the ultimate fact that we supported bin Laden, that we supported Hus

Re:Iraq - Al Qaeda Link

[mdielmann]

that's easy to say, but it seems the U.S. has made these choices of "the lesser of two evils" a number of times, many where there is no clear threat to their national security. The presidential assassination in Chile, and rebel support in Nicaragua are two that come to mind. And using the concept of policing the world to make a safer place seems to fall flat when the U.S. chose not to join in WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbour (after all, a war in Europe wasn't a threat to them, either).

But, clearly